Global Warming Denial

[YokohamaTommy]

One of these days I'd love it, no really I would, if one of the trolls who lurk below this blog hissing their ad homs and their straw men and their appeals to authority could actually respond lucidly to the points raised in posts like this.

Well, because most of have you know, actual lives to lead.
But ah, you must be a very busy person, what with battling the Illuminati and all.

Good Luck with that, btw.

Attachment 15690

I think they also missed the secret symbol where Gary Coleman is flipping the bird just behind the pyramid.

[madmax_returns]

Well, because most of have you know, actual lives to lead.
But ah, you must be a very busy person, what with battling the Illuminati and all.

Good Luck with that, btw.

Attachment 15690

I think they also missed the secret symbol where Gary Coleman is flipping the bird just behind the pyramid.

One of these days I'd love it, no really I would, if one of the trolls who lurks here hissing their ad homs and their straw men and their appeals to authority could actually respond lucidly to the points raised in posts like this.

[YokohamaTommy]

One of these days I'd love it, no really I would, if one of the trolls who lurks here hissing their ad homs and their straw men and their appeals to authority could actually respond lucidly to the points raised in posts like this.

Here's the thing:
Let's say every one of your conspiracies is true. Every bit of all of it.
And I'll try to write the rest without snickering.

Problem is, knowing about something, and doing something about it are two distinct issues.

I'll give you some free advice;

Whatever message you are trying to get across, it's not working.

You come off as a complete and utter nutter.
So if you really have something to say,
then work on your delivery.

[madmax_returns]

Here's the thing:
Let's say every one of your conspiracies is true. Every bit of all of it.
And I'll try to write the rest without snickering.

Problem is, knowing about something, and doing something about it are two distinct issues.

I'll give you some free advice;

Whatever message you are trying to get across, it's not working.

You come off as a complete and utter nutter.
So if you really have something to say,
then work on your delivery.

Comment on the content of the post from delingpole regarding renewable energy etc.

Very simple. He laments the same issue in the telegraph; trolls who never address the actual topic...

One of these days I'd love it, no really I would, if one of the trolls who lurk below this blog hissing their ad homs and their straw men and their appeals to authority could actually respond lucidly to the points raised in posts like this. Let me explain, once more for their benefit, in very simple language why I have a problem with the man-made global warming industry: on the basis of little hard scientific evidence (only computer projections), trillions of pounds, dollars and euros are being pumped into projects which make energy needlessly more expensive, cause tremendous environmental damage, slow down economic growth, stifle liberty and destroy jobs. If just one of the trolls can prove me wrong, I promise never to broach the subject again. But if the best they can come up with is the usual malicious chuntering, then here's a suggestion: bog off and hang out with the other eco-loons at Komment Macht Frei. The way the Guardian's going, it will need all the help it can get if it hopes to survive another year.

[YokohamaTommy]

Comment on the content.

Ok, I will.
It's complete $hite. Every word of your copy and pastes, everything you have ever posted. It's $hite.
Uninteresting. Boring. Cumbersome to read. Unappealing.
A complete waste of your time as well as ours.

Not thought-evoking in the slightest.
Troll fodder at it's best and you know it.

In summation:
Does the term tl;dr register any meaning for you?

[madmax_returns]

Ok, I will.
It's complete $hite. Every word of your copy and pastes, everything you have ever posted. It's $hite.
Uninteresting. Boring. Cumbersome to read. Unappealing.
A complete waste of your time as well as ours.

Not thought-evoking in the slightest.
Troll fodder at it's best and you know it.

In summation:
Does the term tl;dr register any meaning for you?

The troll from the Mid West! Thanks for your thought provoking comments!

This is pretty simple:

Irrespective of whether you believe that CO2 is the devil gas or not, it's now obvious to all that the carbon trading and the taxpayer subisidised renewable energy sector have been a complete waste of time, burning taxpayer money, destroying jobs, and putting even more pressure on already stretched budgets around the world.

Let me explain, once more for their benefit, in very simple language why I have a problem with the man-made global warming industry: on the basis of little hard scientific evidence (only computer projections), trillions of pounds, dollars and euros are being pumped into projects which make energy needlessly more expensive, cause tremendous environmental damage, slow down economic growth, stifle liberty and destroy jobs. If just one of the trolls can prove me wrong, I promise never to broach the subject again.

"Uninteresting. Boring. Cumbersome to read. Unappealing."

But true nevertheless...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...greed-brigade/

[YokohamaTommy]

"Uninteresting. Boring. Cumbersome to read. Unappealing."

But true nevertheless...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...greed-brigade/

Error 404 - Not Found

Sorry, the page you have requested is not available

Please try again later

******************************

At least it wasn't cumbersome to read....

Now for my link.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002..._2_xlarge.jpeg

[madmax_returns]

Sigh...

Here is the delingpole link. Scroll down to the relevant entry.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/

[YokohamaTommy]

Sigh...Here is the delingpole link. Scroll down to the relevant entry. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/

I actually read it: (Do I receive a prize?)

Summation: A plethora of punditry; myopic, non-critical-thinking venomous claptrap.

85% of the article spews bile at all of the lower-life forms that are not they;The other 15% speaks from a pulpit of authority not driven from unbiased examination of ideas presented, but rather a position of forgone conclusion and sheer arrogance that only they can they predict what is right and true and pass it off as a matter of empirical fact. It's an extreme viewpoint, which any logical person can plainly see has it's own agenda which bears no relation to serious and mature dialog.

My original comments still stand.
Show me something middle of the road, minus the agenda, and I'll consider discussing it with you.

[madmax_returns]

I actually read it: (Do I receive a prize?)

Summation: A plethora of punditry; myopic, non-critical-thinking venomous claptrap.

85% of the article spews bile at all of the lower-life forms that are not they;The other 15% speaks from a pulpit of authority not driven from unbiased examination of ideas presented, but rather a position of forgone conclusion and sheer arrogance that only they can they predict what is right and true and pass it off as a matter of empirical fact. It's an extreme viewpoint, which any logical person can plainly see has it's own agenda which bears no relation to serious and mature dialog.

My original comments still stand.
Show me something middle of the road, minus the agenda, and I'll consider discussing it with you.

Seems you're incapable of addressing the article in any intelligent way.

You demonstrate time and time again that you have no game just like the trolls on delingpole's blog, where he states;

"One of these days I'd love it, no really I would, if one of the trolls who lurks here hissing their ad homs and their straw men and their appeals to authority could actually respond lucidly to the points raised in posts like this."

Where is your lucid response to points raised?

Troll...

[YokohamaTommy]

Where is your lucid response to points raised?

You first.
Discuss in your own words (keyword being your own) on the points "raised", and provide your conclusions though reason and logic, by peer-reviewed, verifiable data, and inject no assumption or punditry, no bias or desire to simply "win" or "be right", and then we can converse intelligently.


Your pattern thus far is simple:
You make an outrageous claim, offer no unbaised data to support your claims; You simply state they are true and use yourself as the authority for that truth. You then post links to punditry to support your "claims", and them denounce all opposition as trolls.
You do this over and over again, and the result is the same, hence my questioning your mental status.

Edit Note: I just realized that none of what you have written below is your own writing.

it's now obvious to all that the carbon trading and the taxpayer subisidised renewable energy sector have been a complete waste of time, burning taxpayer money, destroying jobs, and putting even more pressure on already stretched budgets around the world.

Says whom? Where do you get this data from? More Pundit sites?
I honestly doubt if you really understand how Carbon Trading works. Prove me wrong.
You know what would be really impressive? If you gleaned data from a liberal source that verified your claims.
Now that would be something.
But they're all out to get you, aren't they?

taxpayer subisidised renewable energy sector

Who is this nebulous renewable energy sector? Do you expect everyone who reads this to know precisely who you are talking about? Name some names for crying out loud.

have been a complete waste of time

This statement is extraneous and adds nothing to refute or deny your claims since you had not established any of it yet to be fact.

burning taxpayer money, destroying jobs, and putting even more pressure on already stretched budgets around the world.

So prove it.

Let me explain, once more for their benefit, in very simple language why I have a problem with the man-made global warming industry: on the basis of little hard scientific evidence (only computer projections), trillions of pounds, dollars and euros are being pumped into projects which make energy needlessly more expensive, cause tremendous environmental damage, slow down economic growth, stifle liberty and destroy jobs.

This statement is also meaningless. You've essentially told us that you have come to the conclusion that Green Technology is a really bad thing which you have discovered on the basis of (un-reproduced here) " only computer projections". What does that even mean?


I hate to point out the obvious, but that's hardly convincing evidence of your claim.


Here;s another issue. You don't call it Green Technology, but you instead use the the pundit-laced word
"man-made global warming industry", which is purposefully inflammatory.


So again it's always a conspiracy with you it seems.
Seeing a pattern yet?


Look, your claim is extraordinary. That said, extra-ordinary evidence is required.
I'll be happy to discuss with you on this basis, and if i'm wrong, I'm wrong,
but until proven otherwise, you come off as a complete

[madmax_returns]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-green-energy/


Originally Posted by madmax_returns
it's now obvious to all that the carbon trading and the taxpayer subisidised renewable energy sector have been a complete waste of time, burning taxpayer money, destroying jobs, and putting even more pressure on already stretched budgets around the world.

Delingpole concurrs...

Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We're familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every "green job" that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy.
We also know that alternative energy is a fraud – only viable through enormous government (ie taxpayer subsidy) and utterly incapable of answering anything more than a fraction of our energy needs. As Shannon Love puts it here:
Here’s a fact you won’t see mentioned in the public policy debate over “alternative” energy:
There exists no alternative energy source, no combination of alternative energy sources, and no system of combinations of alternative energy sources that can fully replace a single, coal fired electric plant built with 1930s era technology.
Nada.
Zero.
Zilch.
And if you've time, do watch this fantastically damning video about Green Energy, which will make you hate wind farms even more than you did already.
So why are our political leaders setting out quite deliberately to deceive us?
There have many disgustingly revealing stories this week about the dubious practices of the Climate Fear Promotion lobby, but for me the most damning of all was Chris Horner's scoop at Pajamas Media concerning high level cover-ups by the Obama administration. Like his soul mate Dave Cameron on this side of the pond, Obama finds the narrative about global warming so compelling and moving that he doesn't want it spoiled with any inconvenient truths regarding green jobs and green energy.
Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has discovered that when two European reports came out – the Spanish one above; and another one from Denmark on the inefficiency of wind farms – the Obama administration recruited left-wing lobbyists to attack them.
After two studies refuted President Barack Obama’s assertions regarding the success of Spain’s and Denmark’s wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.
Via the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy ― specifically the office headed by Al Gore’s company’s former CEO, Cathy Zoi ― turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals.
The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute “inter-agency memoranda.” This implies that, according to the DoE, wind industry lobbyists and Soros’s Center for American Progress are ― for legal purposes ― extensions of the government.
We see something similar going on here in Britain. The taxpayer funded Quango The Carbon Trust is continually pumping out propaganda on behalf of the powerful wind energy lobby; as too is the BBC which cheerfully funded a political broadcast (masquerading as a cri de coeur) by Green activist George Moonbat on its The Daily Politics show earlier this week. In December it was discovered that civil servants working for the government had suppressed evidence that wind farms damage health and disrupt sleep.
Do our political leaders think we're stupid? Or so supine and malleable that we simply won't mind being lied to if it's for our "own good"?
Tags: Cameron, Enron economics, green energy, green jobs, Obama

[YokohamaTommy]

Delingpole concurrs...

And here we find the only original words of the cut and paste of which your entire post contains.

Copy paste
Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We're familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every "green job" that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy.

The report would seem to already have been thoroughly discredited.

http://greeneconomypost.com/debunk-s...-jobs-1582.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cart...reen-jobs.html

(copy paste)
We also know that alternative energy is a fraud – only viable through enormous government (ie taxpayer subsidy) and utterly incapable of answering anything more than a fraction of our energy needs. As Shannon Love puts it here:

Who the hell is Shannon Love, and why should anyone care what he/she says?

There have many disgustingly revealing stories this week about the dubious practices of the Climate Fear Promotion lobby, but for me the most damning of all was Chris Horner's scoop at Pajamas Media concerning high level cover-ups by the Obama administration. Like his soul mate Dave Cameron on this side of the pond, Obama finds the narrative about global warming so compelling and moving that he doesn't want it spoiled with any inconvenient truths regarding green jobs and green energy.

According to my simple research, Chris Horner is a minor commentator of no notable merit (He was not even listed as a columnist on the fringe pundit PJmedia's site) who appeared to have jumped on the opportunistic "climate gate" topic back in May. He did not "break" or "scoop" the story, nor did Delingpole.

In any event, "ClimateGate" was also discredited after investigation.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new...gate-scientist

I'll tell you what's interesting.
With respect to energy policy and business as usual, Que Bono?

[madmax_returns]

And how exactly has any of the billions spent on all this rubbish made any difference to the CO2 emissions, or the global climate?

Zilch.

All it has done is driven up energy prices in the west, and made more manufacturing leave for China and other countries with cheaper energy and lax environmental controls.

Meanwhile, our economies in the west collapse in debt as we splurge out on slave goods from China further driving up deficits...

[madmax_returns]

Climategate discredited... By who? Oh the establishment who are peddling the scam... You need to reread the emails...

And how exactly has any of the billions spent on all this rubbish made any difference to the CO2 emissions, or the global climate?

Zilch.

Who benefits? The contractors who feed of taxpayer grants, the energy companies like GE who are in bed with the politicians. Who loses? The public who pay twice, first to subsidize this crap and then two, through higher energy prices... Google Solyndra...

All it has done is driven up energy prices in the west, and made more manufacturing leave for China and other countries with cheaper energy and lax environmental controls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/solynd...lHP_print.html
Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs
If you chose to be a sucker thats your choice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gre...ind-farms.html
£10m cost of turning off wind farms

Official figures disclosed that 17 operators were paid almost £7 million for shutting down their farms on almost 40 ­occasions between January and mid-September. Continuing to make payments at that rate would lead to householders paying out £9.9 million in 2011 for operators to disconnect their turbines from the National Grid.

The scale of the payments triggered a review of the rules on so-called constraint payments. The payments are made when too much electricity floods the grid, with the network unable to absorb any excess power generated. The money is ultimately added on to household bills and paid for by consumers.

Last year, only £176,788 of such payments were made, but changes in the way the National Grid, which supplies energy to retail companies, “balances” the electricity network have meant a huge expansion in their use.

The rules meant that some renewable energy companies were paid more to switch off their turbines than they would have received from ordinary operations.

In September, it was disclosed that £1.2 million would go to a Norwegian company that owned 60 turbines in the Scottish Borders, thanks to a period of unusually high wind during the spring. Because of the rising cost, the National Grid “balancing” system could now be overhauled to reduce the use of constraint payments.


Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age - and here are the three 'lies' that prove it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-scam-age.html

Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government's obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time. Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines. But the penny is finally dropping for almost everyone — except our politicians — that to rely on windmills to keep our lights on is a colossal and very dangerous act of self-deception.

Take, for example, the 350ft monstrosity familiar to millions of motorists who drive past as it sluggishly revolves above the M4 outside Reading.

This wind turbine performed so poorly (working at only 15 per cent of its capacity) that the £130,000 government subsidy given to its owners was more than the £100,000 worth of electricity it produced last year.

Meanwhile, official figures have confirmed that during those freezing, windless weeks around Christmas, when electricity demand was at record levels, the contribution made by Britain’s 3,500 turbines was minuscule.
Wind turbines are so expensive that Holland recently became the first country in Europe to abandon its EU renewable energy target, announcing that it is to slash its annual subsidy by billions of euros. So unpopular are wind turbines that our own Government has just offered 'bribes' to local communities, in the form of lower council tax and electricity bills

[Hijinx]

Worth a watch:

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/03/07-0

[YokohamaTommy]

Worth a watch:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang///id/1380

Page not found bro.

[Hijinx]

Page not found bro.

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/03/07-0

[Hijinx]

Page not found bro.

There are some odd things happening to the forum today.

[therebeenthatdone]

The Global Warming debate does not go far enough. In a sense it is a distraction for the real issue.

The real issue is the assumed right of capitalistic interests to dump their waste into our environment, and their persistent denial of the negative effects of it.

In short, the few making more profits out by dumping their wastes into our lives ... passing on the costs to us, our children and grand-children.

If you analyze many of these industries, they are not actually making any profits at all ... they are vastly subsidised, their "profits" merely a small proportion coming out of costs left for the rest of society to afford.


What we need is a 'full cost capitalism' in which the full costs of every industry is passed back to those industry, not just a few gases but right down to the plastic bags and bottles, nuclear waste and landfills that we are busy trying to hide as a surprise for descendants.

The amount of plastic waste I see around me, from the drinks industry to excess packaging, disgusts me. I am proud to say I have my consumption of it down to an almost zero ... but it takes an almost monastic determination to do so.

China has a lot of answer for this ... it seems as though its primary economic model is to produce poorly made, single use and needless sh*t in order to trade it for dollars consuming vast amounts of not just plastic but metals and all the rest ... like all those roughly 24 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks each year (185 pairs per person). Forests around the world (mainly in China), have been irreparably damaged by the waribashi business.


People are so unconscious about where things come from and where things go.

[Hijinx]

The Global Warming debate does not go far enough. In a sense it is a distraction for the real issue.

The real issue is the assumed right of capitalistic interests to dump their waste into our environment, and their persistent denial of the negative effects of it.

In short, the few making more profits out by dumping their wastes into our lives ... passing on the costs to us, our children and grand-children.

If you analyze many of these industries, they are not actually making any profits at all ... they are vastly subsidised, their "profits" merely a small proportion coming out of costs left for the rest of society to afford.

Can't really argue with you there.

People are so unconscious about where things come from and where things go.

Especially when they're drunk.

[YokohamaTommy]

The amount of plastic waste I see around me, from the drinks industry to excess packaging, disgusts me. I am proud to say I have my consumption of it down to an almost zero ... but it takes an almost monastic determination to do so.

Do you realize how many microbes are killed each time you step your foot down?
Or how many cells die each day in your body?
And how many insects die each week to support the disgusting habit of vegetarians as they are consumed accidentally in your salad?
And the conspiracy does not end there! Oh no!
The willful genocide of our tiniest, most helpless residents on Earth must be stopped at all costs!
BILLIONS ARE HEARTLESSLY SLAUGHTERED EACH SECOND!
This madness must stop!

Therefore, for the good of all microbes, and the Earth,
(who were here first and this is really their planet) I HIGHLY recommend we all simply self-terminate.
It's really the only option. And for the best.
We are scum, really.
We should all be very ashamed at our mere exsistance as this is an affront to all that is kind and good and cilia and flagellum-filled in this world.
Think of the bacterium children.
http://www.vhemt.org/

Mr. WJS,
Won't you consider self-termination for the good of the microbes?
Are you really that heartless and cruel?
I thought you cared...


I would post a video, but absolutely no one seems to care about this horrible crime against Germanity.
Won't you care? Wont you lift a finger to stop the madness?

[YokohamaTommy]

It is bad enough ... and pathetic enough ... that "thegreatoneo" is faking up extremely racist quotes in my name, but who is now deleting my posts?

No one is.
You were banned.
You then created another account from behind a proxy,
which means you are as troll-er-iffic as they come.

[YokohamaTommy]

Oh, my posts are just deleting themselves?

If they are, who gives a $hit?
This isn't a democracy.
Your account exists at the will of the moderators.
You have zero right of any expectation here.

[Hijinx]

Oh where, oh where is all that global cooling promised by the likes of the deniers jotham and lovelynuts?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ldnt-see-this/

What's the retard count up to? 73? Hehehehehehehehehe

[Hijinx]

Still no global cooling? How long can the shameful deniers keep it up?

2012: Hottest Year on Record for Continental U.S.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...united-states/

And from the National Climate Assessment:

"This evidence has been compiled by scientists and engineers from around the world, using satellites, weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming."



1. Global climate is changing, and this is apparent across the U.S. in a wide range of observations.



2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and there is new and stronger evidence that many of these increases are related to human activities.


3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue and accelerate significantly if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.


4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly challenging across the nation throughout this century and beyond.


5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water, and threats to mental health.


6. Infrastructure across the U.S. is being adversely affected by phenomena associated with climate change, including sea level rise, storm surge, heavy downpours, and extreme heat.



7. Reliability of water supplies is being reduced by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods in many regions, particularly the Southwest, the Great Plains, the Southeast, and the islands of the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the state of Hawai`i.


8. Adverse impacts to crops and livestock over the next 100 years are expected.

9. Natural ecosystems are being directly affected by climate change, including changes in biodiversity and location of species. As a result, the capacity of ecosystems to moderate the consequences of disturbances such as droughts, floods, and severe storms is being diminished.


10. Life in the oceans is changing as ocean waters become warmer and more acidic.


11. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce emissions) is increasing, but progress with implementation is limited.


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/11-7

[ruserious]

And from the National Climate Assessment:

"This evidence has been compiled by scientists and engineers from around the world, using satellites, weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming."

Correction: The planet is warming again, as it has done off and on since the beginning of time.

I have two questions. My first question is this; What percentage of the warming is the result of natural events, and what percentage is the result of man-made events?

My second question is kind of a two-parter; Of the portion of warming that is man-made, how much of that can we eliminate, and what will the resulting decrease in temperatures be if we eliminate all of the things you list?

[Hijinx]

Correction: The planet is warming again, as it has done off and on since the beginning of time.

I have two questions. My first question is this; What percentage of the warming is the result of natural events, and what percentage is the result of man-made events?

My second question is kind of a two-parter; Of the portion of warming that is man-made, how much of that can we eliminate, and what will the resulting decrease in temperatures be if we eliminate all of the things you list?

There is no correction. The planet is warming and it's human caused (anthropogenic) at present. No one has ever denied past records, so no "correction" needed.

Your questions can be answered if you could bother to pay attention, do simple Google searches, or just bother to read the articles posted.

We could eliminate a whole lot if the political will were to materialize, but that probably won't happen until the extraction industries completely rape the planet and make their completely obscene profits at the expense of many future generations.

[ruserious]

The planet is warming and it's human caused (anthropogenic) at present.

Really? 100% man-made? You actually believe that?

You know one large volcanic eruption impacts the temperature of the entire planet.

Are you claiming that volcanic eruptions are man-made?

It frustrates the hell out of me when people claim outrageous stuff like "it's anthropogenic at present".

The FACT is, it is only partially man made. Anybody who claims otherwise is talking out their backside. I put you in that category.

You need to go back and read any reputable article on this topic. They will say things like "anthropogenic forcing has a detectable influence..."

"Detectable" means it was more than just white noise. It does NOT mean it was the entire cause.

You need to stop drinking the cool-aid.

[edin日本]

Correction: The planet is warming again, as it has done off and on since the beginning of time.

I have two questions. My first question is this; What percentage of the warming is the result of natural events, and what percentage is the result of man-made events?

My second question is kind of a two-parter; Of the portion of warming that is man-made, how much of that can we eliminate, and what will the resulting decrease in temperatures be if we eliminate all of the things you list?

As George Carlin once said "The planet is doing fine, it's Homo sapiens who are fukked!" The Earth will recover but we'll be gone.

[Hijinx]

"Detectable" means it was more than just white noise. It does NOT mean it was the entire cause.

You need to stop drinking the cool-aid.

Considering how the evidence supporting anthropogenic warming continues to pile sky high, while very little evidence to none that support continued denying, exactly who is drinking the cool aid, again?

Still a denier. Not surprising considering how long it took for the heliocentric idea to take. You do believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, yes?

Here's an interesting article about how deniers generally also believe in small government (except for military, police and subsidies for extraction companies and banksters), but due to climate change, government regulations will increase to new heights. Heheheheheh.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/01-0

[madmax_returns]

Really? 100% man-made? You actually believe that?

You know one large volcanic eruption impacts the temperature of the entire planet.

Are you claiming that volcanic eruptions are man-made?

It frustrates the hell out of me when people claim outrageous stuff like "it's anthropogenic at present".

The FACT is, it is only partially man made. Anybody who claims otherwise is talking out their backside. I put you in that category.

You need to go back and read any reputable article on this topic. They will say things like "anthropogenic forcing has a detectable influence..."

"Detectable" means it was more than just white noise. It does NOT mean it was the entire cause.

You need to stop drinking the cool-aid.

No point speaking sense to climate zealots who are still believers after all the nasty predictions they made with their corrupt computer simulations never came to pass.

Cool aid drinking, chicken little, warmists continue to try scare tactics, just as they did in the 70's with global cooling. The billions spent on this fraud have taken money away from real issues, driven power prices up etc.

It's become a non issue for the public and the media with the NYTimes closing their environment section.

No global warming in last 16 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prove-it.html

The global Warming jig is up

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ing-jig-is-up/


It's Death of Little Nell time again in the field of climate "science." The New York Times – aka Pravda – has announced the closure of its Environment Desk. Rumours that the entire environment team, headed by Andy Revkin, have volunteered to be recycled into compost and spread on the lawn of the new billion dollar home Al Gore bought with the proceeds of his sale of Current TV to Middle Eastern oil interests are as yet unconfirmed. What we do know is that it's very, very sad and that all over the Arctic baby polar bears are weeping bitter tears of regret.
A spokesman for the New York Times, quoted in the Guardian, has reaffirmed the paper's commitment to environmental issues.
"We devote a lot of resources to it, now more than ever. We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage. This is purely a structural matter."

[hennagaijin]

Madman is the main reason I keep coming back to this forum :-D

Missing his gun-nut thread... but here is calling people "trolls" and talking about "strawmen" while posting links to out-there nut-job type blogs as if they have some credibility :-D

It really takes some ego to believe that only his thinking is correct while everyone is pointing out his failings.
Go, Madman!!

And please spend some more time on the gun-nut thread.. I really need the chuckles today!

MORE GUNS FOR AMERICANS!!

[ruserious]

Considering how the evidence supporting anthropogenic warming continues to pile sky high, while very little evidence to none that support continued denying, exactly who is drinking the cool aid, again?

You're missing the point, so I'll try once again to explain it. The evidence supporting anthropogenic warming accounts for a PORTION of the climate change. The evidence supports a CONTRIBUTION. It does NOT support anthropogenic warming as the ONLY cause. No scientist in their right mind would make such a claim. The best science can do is show a good correlation between measured temperatures and certain human activity.

Like I mentioned earlier, one large volcanic eruption can produce a measurable effect on global temperatures. No scientist that I know of claims that volcanic eruptions are man-made.

If volcanos contribute to some of the warming (or cooling), then human activity cannot be the only cause.

[Hijinx]

There is no doubt that the global climate is getting warmer.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.



Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

[Hijinx]

The actually article mention (and the actual conclusion) in one of the torygraph's disinformation crusade:

What the slimeball James Delingpole says:

"And also with NASA's recent admission that solar variation has a much more significant on terrestrial climate than it has hitherto been prepared to acknowledge."

And what the actual article says:

"Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...an_sunclimate/

[edin日本]

There is no doubt that the global climate is getting warmer.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.



Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

No, ruserious is right. This change occurred due to volcanic action.

What happened was the super caldera in Yellowstone has recently become active, reports of record temperatures, massive pyroclastic bursts of lava and ash were spewed up into the atmosphere and are falling as far away as New York and Miami. The US Geological Service is predicting a 10% increase in Carbon Dioxide, record temperatures that will be 20% above the norm for the remainder of this winter and a sudden plummeting fall by the spring that will result in freezing temperatures across the entire Northern Hemisphere. Expectations that approximately 200 million people will die due to this calamity.

[kurogane]

No, ruserious is right. This change occurred due to volcanic action.

While I am as happy as anybody that RU'S got something right for a change, it does only beg the question:


who is causing this increased volcanic activity??????


Madmax-ites everywhere NEED to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[madmax_returns]

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Last year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had ‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.
We were vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’ that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’.
The Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could be ‘punished’.
But then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.
This is hugely significant. It amounts to an admission that earlier forecasts – which have dictated years of Government policy and will cost tens of billions of pounds – were wrong. They did not, the Met Office now accepts, take sufficient account of ‘natural variability’ – the effects of phenomena such as ocean temperature cycles – which at least for now are counteracting greenhouse effect.

There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.
Yet the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.

[Hijinx]

Yeah, one more lie by a denier rag.



Here's what was actually said:
http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-off...p-16-years-ago
UK Met Office responds: It’s still getting warmer

The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading.



So … it is still warming after all. In fact, in a report released by the National Climatic Data Center this week, global land and ocean surface temperatures for the month of September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record, at 0.67 degrees Celsius (1.21 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th century average of 15.0 degrees Celsius (59.0 degrees Fahrenheit). It appears that the rate of warming has slowed slightly at this time; in other words, at the moment, it’s not increasing in warmth as fast as it was. Temperatures remain at all-time highs since records began, however, and our warming climate continues to break its own records.